Anyway, I've worked both in academia and industry. Industry is simply more practical and better at technology. In tech areas, academia desperately needs industry to provide the feedback they provide. Especially in AI areas. You are thinking of CEO's or salespeople or something, but the people that matter here are the engineers. And I'd place their assessment over that of grad students any day. If the engineers can't make it work, then yes there's a problem here. Doesn't always mean it can't work, but for most ideas it probably does.
By the way industry research labs certainly still exist. But long-term self-funded research has to compete with govt funding of research. Why throw your investor money at a high-risk idea when Stanford, MIT, and 100 other R1's are throwing taxpayer money at it? Otherwise industry labs end up just competing for govt gants ultimately. Meanwhile nowadays we see academia chasing short-term problems that industry leads in (and trying to patent them too).
Where did you get this from? Not like they call the shots. Weird statement.
> In tech areas, academia desperately needs industry to provide the feedback they provide
That's true, I agree. But the tech industry is also very often ruled by the worst of humanity so it's a balance.
Capitalism makes all of this happen. So the attack on capitalism is so deeply deluded, it’s strange to see it in a tech crowd who know better. Hell, your salary probably comes from “Corporations”. When you’re in the hospital, note all the corporations doing evil things to save your life.
Under Colonial powers corporations engaged in slave trade, folks that fought against slavery were fighting against capitalism, totally deluded right?
Ancient Japan had corporations in year 578 A.D., where they capitalist? Fascism and Nazis had corporations, and they made great scientific progress, were they capitalist?
If the answer to any of the above is no, then maybe you don't get to use 'mah Capitalism!' when defending policies of today, unless you want to be accused of hypocrisy.
Economists do not use meaningless terms like 'capitalism', they talk specific, Neoliberal, Shumpeterian, etc.
People don’t understand Capitalism and they seem to have joined the liberal progressive bandwagon. Progressives used to be extremely pro-Capatilist movement. Until lately, and some fringe socialist ideas of Bernie Sanders, it was universally accepted. Apparently after 2020, the entire progressive movement started stomping on billionaires and corporations.
There is a reason why most strong economies are capitalist. It’s the best tool we have.
Also, I tend to believe the opposite of what the HN hive mind thinks. Usually the opposite is true and even if it’s not, it breaks the bandwagoning. Thanks for the response!
That's both true and false. That is, there was once a pro-capitalist movement called “Progressive”, but it has essentially no connection to the modern movement that adopted the name. (There have been lots of unrelated “Progressive” movements, historically.)
> Until lately, and some fringe socialist ideas of Bernie Sanders, it was universally accepted.
Nope, not at all; the label “progressive” was adopted by the faction overlapping the Democratic Party which opposes capitalism to distinguish themselves from the pro-capitalist “liberals” not long after the Clinton’s center-right faction became clearly dominant on the Democratic Party, it was well established by the late 1990s.
> There is a reason why most strong economies are capitalist
Most strong economies moved off of the historical system for which 19th Century critics coined the term “capitalism” in the first half of the 20th Century, adopting a hybrid system synthesizing capitalist and socialist ideas that has a couple of different names, such as “Modern Mixed Economy”.
> Also, I tend to believe the opposite of what the HN hive mind thinks
There is no “HN hive mind”, though it's a popular thing for people to attribute ideas they oppose to (even when people who agree with them are quite common on HN.)
I recommend instead of treating it as a culture war you pick up: 'Economics: The User's Guide'.
The goal of academic research is to further knowledge, as long as knowledge is produced even if is only that an approach will not work then they are not wasting anything.
It is not job of academic research to monetize or even do work that can be potentially monetized. That what corporate research is for.
If academia focused on monetization they wouldn't need to teach or depend on public funding to keen afloat. That is simply not their goal.
Most academic scholars have a teaching day job and are more than fullfilling a useful role in society with just that . anything further is gravy
The market can do this, if it’s correctly incentivized to do so.
More often than not, the incentives just aren’t there or are compelling enough.
Often it’s other businesses that put up such disincentives.
I am very skeptical and would like to see studies that evidence this. Counterfactually, the market would never tolerate the decades of research behind MRNA vaccines and the researchers behind it were considered useless. The market has also put in mind-blowing amounts of money towards the ameloid hypothesis behind alzheimers to massive disappointment.
I don't think the market is good at validating any ideas or research. Salespeople will talk up their product to no end and over promise. The only thing the market validates is the ability of people to sell crap
Being able to sell something doesn't necessarily mean that thing is good or correct in any way
That's why the market for homeopathy and fake medicine is worth $30,000,000,000, right?